| The global spread of COVID-19 has sparked a public safety crisis in early 2020,since then the pandemic risk has become a significantly important issue in social life.Due to the uncertainty of public health risks and the cognition difficulty caused by its complicated feature,the public’s perception towards the risk to a largely degree depends on experts’opinions.As the first country attacked by the coronavirus around the world,China has set an example with regard to risk prevention and control under the guidance of experts.Its mass media exerted their influence to inform the public of knowledge on pandemic prevention and control,clarify rumors,ease panic,and created a positive public opinion environment for smooth implementation of COVID-19 prevention measures.By comparison,expert opinions in the United States tend to be marginalized.Based on this phenomenon,through a comparative content analysis of news coverage of the pandemic from Xinhua News Agency(Xinhua)and the Associated Press(AP),this study aims to explore to what extent do the coverage of COVID-19 from AP and Xinhua represent the agenda setting effect of the pandemic through expert opinions.The following four research questions thus are raised for the investigation:(1)To what extent do the coverage of COVID-19 from Xinhua and AP place their importance on experts?(2)On what subjects do Xinhua and AP choose to present associative experts’opinions?(3)In what way do Xinhua and AP choose to present experts’ opinions on COVID19?(4)From what kind of experts do Xinhua and AP report COVID-19?In order to verify the above problems,this study conducts content analysis and comparative research method to study media reports in China and the US on COVID-19 during the period from January 20,2020 to January 20,2021.Different agenda setting choices of expert opinion leaders in AP and Xinhua News Agency reports on risk issues were thus analyzed from the following four categories:1.The quantity of news coverage represented by the exact number of media reports.2.The five themes of news topics involved.3.The four identities of experts.4.The reporting tendency including positivity,neutrality,and negativity.Four relative conclusions have been concluded as follows:1.Mainstream media in China and the US have a high dependence on expert opinions,of which presenting the technocratic approach of risk communication.2.Chinese media sets the agenda mainly by educating the public on measures of pandemic prevention and control,while the latter sets the agenda by informing the public about the development path of the epidemic and its global spread.Both types of news construction rarely explain the scientific core of epidemic risk.3.News organizations are on the same page as the pundits they quote.American media focus on presenting professional knowledge rather than partisan voices,which makes expert opinions easily marginalized.Experts’ opinions are more fully displayed in Chinese media,while grassroots opinions are less expressed.Paradigm shift needs to be boosted in risk communication of both media coverage.4.American media rely more on scientists and researchers for their news reports,while Chinese news organizations rely more on policy makers.Consultative democracy needs to be constructed in the process of policy-agendasetting.Findings have shown that media coverage on the pandemic to a certain degree depend on specialists’ opinions,thus suggestions have been offered to take good advantage of negative reports,select multiple news source from the experts,and take initiatives in risk information agenda setting,so as to promote the paradigm shift from technocratic approach to democratic approach,thus strengthening consultative democracy in the policy-agendasetting process.This study offers positive theoretical and practical significance for the supplement and perfection of risk communication theory and the improvement of agenda setting methods of mainstream media. |
PDF Full Text Request